beechguy Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) There is absolutely no moral difference between a suicide bomber and an American drone strike.Both kill innocent people for political reasons. Absolutely a massive difference. A suicide bomber's goal is a kin to criminals such as gangsters and mafioso with even lower morality and ethics who's goal it is to intimidate and instill fear into the population and targets random innocents, while this is not the purpose of a drone.. What is the purpose of a drone then? Slaughtering innocent wedding parties. No moral difference at all. Many drone strikes have targeted innocent people. Of course they have brown skin so thats alright then. No, they did not intentionally target innocent people with drones. Edited November 23, 2011 by beechguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 What is the purpose of a drone then? Slaughtering innocent wedding parties. No moral difference at all. Many drone strikes have targeted innocent people. Of course they have brown skin so thats alright then. No, they did not intentionally target innocent people with drones. Dead is dead.....What would you say to those at the wedding party? Or the large group of tribal elders killed at a meeting? Ooops? Sorry accidental? Recent articles For Our Allies, Death From Above How America is destabilizing Pakistan Drone Terrorism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 There is absolutely no moral difference between a suicide bomber and an American drone strike.Both kill innocent people for political reasons. Absolutely a massive difference. A suicide bomber's goal is a kin to criminals such as gangsters and mafioso with even lower morality and ethics who's goal it is to intimidate and instill fear into the population and targets random innocents, while this is not the purpose of a drone.. What is the purpose of a drone then? Slaughtering innocent wedding parties. No moral difference at all. Many drone strikes have targeted innocent people. Of course they have brown skin so thats alright then. The glaring, elephant-in-the-room difference is INTENT. The suicide bombers intend to kill innocent people, the drone pilots don't. But you and everyone here already knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 What is the purpose of a drone then? Slaughtering innocent wedding parties. No moral difference at all. Many drone strikes have targeted innocent people. Of course they have brown skin so thats alright then. No, they did not intentionally target innocent people with drones. Dead is dead.....What would you say to those at the wedding party? Or the large group of tribal elders killed at a meeting? Ooops? Sorry accidental? Recent articles For Our Allies, Death From Above How America is destabilizing Pakistan Drone Terrorism People at wedding parties in a war zone who insist on shooting automatic weapons in the air take their chances. As for the others, friendly fire is something almost as old as war itself and the number of instances are amazingly low all things considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 War is hell and these were hateful murderers who purposely target civilians that were killed. Trying to draw a moral equivalence between terrorists and the NATO forces is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 People at wedding parties in a war zone who insist on shooting automatic weapons in the air take their chances. As for the others, friendly fire is something almost as old as war itself and the number of instances are amazingly low all things considered. First off whose country customs is it? If on the 4th of July some Americans set off some M80's would it be ok to bomb them? Secondly there were no automatic weapons<sic> at the wedding. The father was walking the soon to be dead bride to the groom village as I recall. Lastly as for friendly fire I would not wish such a friendly term on even you & yours. War is hell and these were hateful murderers who purposely target civilians that were killed. Trying to draw a moral equivalence between terrorists and the NATO forces is ridiculous. Puleeze...Is the US now at war with Pakistan too? NATO??? Your confused the CIA alone controls the drones in Pakistan As for murderers who target civilians that were killed? You mean the 15 Saudi's who took part in 9-11? I believe they died...dont you? Also note the reason they attacked was told many times to be because the US occupation/military on holy lands in Saudi. In 2003 those bases were closed & or moved to Qatar No attacks since eh? But the need to dominate & protect oil interests continues under the guise of a War On Terror <sic> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beechguy Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) People at wedding parties in a war zone who insist on shooting automatic weapons in the air take their chances. As for the others, friendly fire is something almost as old as war itself and the number of instances are amazingly low all things considered. First off whose country customs is it? If on the 4th of July some Americans set off some M80's would it be ok to bomb them? Secondly there were no automatic weapons<sic> at the wedding. The father was walking the soon to be dead bride to the groom village as I recall. Lastly as for friendly fire I would not wish such a friendly term on even you & yours. War is hell and these were hateful murderers who purposely target civilians that were killed. Trying to draw a moral equivalence between terrorists and the NATO forces is ridiculous. Puleeze...Is the US now at war with Pakistan too? NATO??? Your confused the CIA alone controls the drones in Pakistan As for murderers who target civilians that were killed? You mean the 15 Saudi's who took part in 9-11? I believe they died...dont you? Also note the reason they attacked was told many times to be because the US occupation/military on holy lands in Saudi. In 2003 those bases were closed & or moved to Qatar No attacks since eh? But the need to dominate & protect oil interests continues under the guise of a War On Terror <sic> There have been U.S. military personnel operating in Saudi Arabia for decades and at the request of the Saudi government, and some are still there, check out PSAB and other installations. Osama just got pissed when the Saudi's rejected his offer to protect them from the Iraqi's in 1991. As to no attacks since 2003, complete nonsense, there were several attacks in the Dhahran area when I was accross the causeway in Bahrain. We were also warned several times of attempts to smuggle bombs ans weapons across to our side. Anyway, you can try to BS people, but it won't work for those of us who have lived there. And it didn't seem to change the attitudes of some he others.http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0324/Saudi-Arabia-announces-arrest-of-110-Al-Qaeda-suspects As to the actual topic, these British guys made a decision and hopefully paid for it before they killed any innocent bystanders at a mosque or market. Edited November 24, 2011 by beechguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beechguy Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 What is the purpose of a drone then? Slaughtering innocent wedding parties. No moral difference at all. Many drone strikes have targeted innocent people. Of course they have brown skin so thats alright then. No, they did not intentionally target innocent people with drones. Dead is dead.....What would you say to those at the wedding party? Or the large group of tribal elders killed at a meeting? Ooops? Sorry accidental? Recent articles For Our Allies, Death From Above How America is destabilizing Pakistan Drone Terrorism That's exactly what happened, they met the people, apologized, and paid some money and life went on. I wish we didn't have those incidents, but those things have happened in every war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) You mean the 15 Saudi's who took part in 9-11? I believe they died...dont you? Of course they are the only terorists ever and there have been plenty of attempted attacks that were thwarted and semi-automatic weapons kill too and so on.... Edited November 24, 2011 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 There is absolutely no moral difference between a suicide bomber and an American drone strike.Both kill innocent people for political reasons. Absolutely a massive difference. A suicide bomber's goal is a kin to criminals such as gangsters and mafioso with even lower morality and ethics who's goal it is to intimidate and instill fear into the population and targets random innocents, while this is not the purpose of a drone.. What is the purpose of a drone then? Slaughtering innocent wedding parties. No moral difference at all. Many drone strikes have targeted innocent people. Of course they have brown skin so thats alright then. Link please? Don't just spout leftist propagandist manure without proof. What innocent wedding party are you speaking of and can you tell me what source reported that it was an intentional bombing if it ever even happened? Every bombing by terrorist groups proudly stands up to claim responsibility, please name one time that any coalition military has done such a thing after ACCIDENTALLY bombing innocents and if it was intentional? Tell me why or if they were or weren't prosecuted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Absolutely a massive difference. A suicide bomber's goal is a kin to criminals such as gangsters and mafioso with even lower morality and ethics who's goal it is to intimidate and instill fear into the population and targets random innocents, while this is not the purpose of a drone.. lower morality and ethics who's goal it is to intimidate and instill fear into the population and targets random innocents I think if you ask the Pakistani civilians who have had family members,friends & neighbors killed & are now protesting by the thousands in Pakistan... You will find their opinion is that the purpose of the drones for them is in fact exactly as you stated above. At the end of the day....For What? Where is the actual threat to America? None exists now anymore than it did when they started these invasions. These are the same people that are "upset" about the loss of their proven terrorist sons as highlighted in the OP, they have no credibility, Osama was in their neighborhood and even the military did nothing. I could care less what any Pakistani thinks about our campaign against terrorists just as much as they care less how many of us the terrorists kill as demonstrated by their recent ignorance intentional or not of the locale of Bin laden... JFYI Any poisonous snake can still kill you hours after it's been dead so you make certain it's dead and still dispatch it only with care.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 What is the purpose of a drone then? Slaughtering innocent wedding parties. No moral difference at all. Many drone strikes have targeted innocent people. Of course they have brown skin so thats alright then. No, they did not intentionally target innocent people with drones. Dead is dead.....What would you say to those at the wedding party? Or the large group of tribal elders killed at a meeting? Ooops? Sorry accidental? Recent articles For Our Allies, Death From Above How America is destabilizing Pakistan Drone Terrorism Yes and for every one of those I can show you 10 terrorist attacks on innocents intentionally if I could be arsed to. There is no need though as you know full well it's true besides, remind me again who began these wars exactly? If they didn't want to get burned they shouldn't have put their hand on the burner in the first place, elementary really, my 6 and 7 year old know better.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 There is absolutely no moral difference between a suicide bomber and an American drone strike.Both kill innocent people for political reasons. Absolutely a massive difference. A suicide bomber's goal is a kin to criminals such as gangsters and mafioso with even lower morality and ethics who's goal it is to intimidate and instill fear into the population and targets random innocents, while this is not the purpose of a drone.. What is the purpose of a drone then? Slaughtering innocent wedding parties. No moral difference at all. Many drone strikes have targeted innocent people. Of course they have brown skin so thats alright then. The glaring, elephant-in-the-room difference is INTENT. The suicide bombers intend to kill innocent people, the drone pilots don't. But you and everyone here already knew that. Of course they did, but admitting that doesn't suit their leftist propagandist agenda.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) People at wedding parties in a war zone who insist on shooting automatic weapons in the air take their chances. As for the others, friendly fire is something almost as old as war itself and the number of instances are amazingly low all things considered. First off whose country customs is it? If on the 4th of July some Americans set off some M80's would it be ok to bomb them? Secondly there were no automatic weapons<sic> at the wedding. The father was walking the soon to be dead bride to the groom village as I recall. Lastly as for friendly fire I would not wish such a friendly term on even you & yours. War is hell and these were hateful murderers who purposely target civilians that were killed. Trying to draw a moral equivalence between terrorists and the NATO forces is ridiculous. Puleeze...Is the US now at war with Pakistan too? NATO??? Your confused the CIA alone controls the drones in Pakistan As for murderers who target civilians that were killed? You mean the 15 Saudi's who took part in 9-11? I believe they died...dont you? Also note the reason they attacked was told many times to be because the US occupation/military on holy lands in Saudi. In 2003 those bases were closed & or moved to Qatar No attacks since eh? But the need to dominate & protect oil interests continues under the guise of a War On Terror <sic> You know what really strikes me here is that it's the left wing president that most of you voted into office that has increased the use of drones in these conflicts. He promised to do so when you voted him in and now that he's fulfilling that promise you're whinging about it.. Quite ironic that, just goes to show you'll never be satisfied... I might also add that your first attempt at a comparison is so far off base you're in the dugout. Firstly if one is stupid enough not to use common sense in a war zone as to not curb their enthusiasm to save their lives well sam num na. Secondly last I checked the US mainland was not the "war zone" so bombing a 4th of July reveler would not be appropriate but if it were, the same common sense should prevail or the potential recourse would be just as grave sorry to say. Edited November 24, 2011 by WarpSpeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 People at wedding parties in a war zone who insist on shooting automatic weapons in the air take their chances. As for the others, friendly fire is something almost as old as war itself and the number of instances are amazingly low all things considered. First off whose country customs is it? If on the 4th of July some Americans set off some M80's would it be ok to bomb them? Secondly there were no automatic weapons<sic> at the wedding. The father was walking the soon to be dead bride to the groom village as I recall. Lastly as for friendly fire I would not wish such a friendly term on even you & yours. War is hell and these were hateful murderers who purposely target civilians that were killed. Trying to draw a moral equivalence between terrorists and the NATO forces is ridiculous. Puleeze...Is the US now at war with Pakistan too? NATO??? Your confused the CIA alone controls the drones in Pakistan As for murderers who target civilians that were killed? You mean the 15 Saudi's who took part in 9-11? I believe they died...dont you? Also note the reason they attacked was told many times to be because the US occupation/military on holy lands in Saudi. In 2003 those bases were closed & or moved to Qatar No attacks since eh? But the need to dominate & protect oil interests continues under the guise of a War On Terror <sic> Re-reading this rubbish again you're really a quite simple person aren't you? Who decides for you when you take a toilet break I'm wondering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 With regard to the wedding party incident, which I believe we are still waiting for a link on I could cite both weddings and funerals attacked by suicide bombers and provide links, thought I think that would be off topic. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between the two, that would be as silly as claiming equivalence between a car killing someone due to a mechanical failure causing the driver to lose control and a premeditated attempt to run people over and kill them for whatever reason. P.S The Pakistanis are pre-agitated due largely to the intolerant religiously based hatred taught in their schools, which is why they dance on the rooftops celebrating the deaths of innocent people on 9/11, on the other hand we 'celebrate' if that's the word deaths of terrorists and not innocent bystanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Re-reading this rubbish again you're really a quite simple person aren't you? Who decides for you when you take a toilet break I'm wondering? I share your frustration there is a world of difference between the motive for terrorist behavior and its pretext, though many in the west, especially on the left swallow the pretext every time in spite of overwhelming evidence that it's bullshite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Yes and for every one of those I can show you 10 terrorist attacks on innocents intentionally if I could be arsed to. There is no need though as you know full well it's true besides, remind me again who began these wars exactly? If they didn't want to get burned they shouldn't have put their hand on the burner in the first place, elementary really, my 6 and 7 year old know better.. perhaps you should consult your 6 and year old to avoid posting rubbish WarpSpeed? when did Pakistan declare war on the Greatest Nation on Earth™? topic: British terror suspects killed in U.S. drone strike in Pakistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) Yes and for every one of those I can show you 10 terrorist attacks on innocents intentionally if I could be arsed to. There is no need though as you know full well it's true besides, remind me again who began these wars exactly? If they didn't want to get burned they shouldn't have put their hand on the burner in the first place, elementary really, my 6 and 7 year old know better.. perhaps you should consult your 6 and year old to avoid posting rubbish WarpSpeed? when did Pakistan declare war on the Greatest Nation on Earth™? topic: British terror suspects killed in U.S. drone strike in Pakistan. What rubbish prey tell? No rubbish, they were harboring the worlds most sought after terrorist and it's always been the mission to hunt the b'stard and his cronies down wherever they're located so that's what happened and they were as more British then Pakistani so what business do they have even protesting? That's up to the British and I don't hear much condemnation coming out of their Parliament.. No war declared on Pakistan and I never said there was so work on that comprehension before posting counter rubbish OK? Edited November 24, 2011 by WarpSpeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 There is absolutely no moral difference between a suicide bomber and an American drone strike.Both kill innocent people for political reasons. Absolutely a massive difference. A suicide bomber's goal is a kin to criminals such as gangsters and mafioso with even lower morality and ethics who's goal it is to intimidate and instill fear into the population and targets random innocents, while this is not the purpose of a drone.. What is the purpose of a drone then? Slaughtering innocent wedding parties. No moral difference at all. Many drone strikes have targeted innocent people. Of course they have brown skin so thats alright then. The glaring, elephant-in-the-room difference is INTENT. The suicide bombers intend to kill innocent people, the drone pilots don't. But you and everyone here already knew that. the elephant-in-the-room is "terror suspects killed". similar to "friend/foe identification" drones which are used for killing suspicious terroristic elements are equipped with a "suspect / non-suspect identification" system which works with an accuracy of 50%. the important factor is that 50% of "suspected suspects with suspicious" faces and suspicious attributes (full beard, no baseball cap, no american flag on lapel, wedding parties without unveiled bridesmaids, etc.) are identified and torn to pieces with a couple of hellfire missiles. it goes without saying that the other 50% innocent non-suspicious bystanders are unavoidable collateral damage. it's their own fault, why did they not apply for a green card and open a convenience store in Omaha or Vegas? children and little babies are often killed too? fate hit hard because their parents did not apply for a green card and open a convenience store in Omaha, Fort Worth or Vegas. don't blame the drones and don't blame those who send drones to kill people. we all know that we must accept what fate, karma or kismet has in store for us especially for those Pakistani citizens who (courtesy Wiki-WarpSpeed.com) declared war on the U.S. of A. :jap: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Absolutely a massive difference. A suicide bomber's goal is a kin to criminals such as gangsters and mafioso with even lower morality and ethics who's goal it is to intimidate and instill fear into the population and targets random innocents, while this is not the purpose of a drone.. What is the purpose of a drone then? Slaughtering innocent wedding parties. No moral difference at all. Many drone strikes have targeted innocent people. Of course they have brown skin so thats alright then. The glaring, elephant-in-the-room difference is INTENT. The suicide bombers intend to kill innocent people, the drone pilots don't. But you and everyone here already knew that. the elephant-in-the-room is "terror suspects killed". similar to "friend/foe identification" drones which are used for killing suspicious terroristic elements are equipped with a "suspect / non-suspect identification" system which works with an accuracy of 50%. the important factor is that 50% of "suspected suspects with suspicious" faces and suspicious attributes (full beard, no baseball cap, no american flag on lapel, wedding parties without unveiled bridesmaids, etc.) are identified and torn to pieces with a couple of hellfire missiles. it goes without saying that the other 50% innocent non-suspicious bystanders are unavoidable collateral damage. it's their own fault, why did they not apply for a green card and open a convenience store in Omaha or Vegas? children and little babies are often killed too? fate hit hard because their parents did not apply for a green card and open a convenience store in Omaha, Fort Worth or Vegas. don't blame the drones and don't blame those who send drones to kill people. we all know that we must accept what fate, karma or kismet has in store for us especially for those Pakistani citizens who (courtesy Wiki-WarpSpeed.com) declared war on the U.S. of A. :jap: Sorry another glaring inaccuracy as I seldom quote Wiki.. However did these extinct terrorists have notable, previous terrorist records or did they not? Rhetorical question as the answer has been publicized so therefore not actually "suspected at all" that's just media jargon used as a disclaimer so as not to get sued.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between the two, that would be as silly as claiming equivalence between a car killing someone due to a mechanical failure causing the driver to lose control and a premeditated attempt to run people over and kill them for whatever reason. Exactly. terrorists purposely target innocents. There is no moral equivalence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 they were harboring the worlds most sought after terrorist now what? backtracking? not "beginning" wars (plural)? killing innocent civilians (especially children) in the wake of killing "suspects" because these civilians were harbouring one or more terrorists? gimme a break and consult your children instead of ridiculing yourself. anybody who condones or tries to excuse the arbitrary killing of human beings is as guilty as those who give the actual orders! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) they were harboring the worlds most sought after terrorist now what? backtracking? not "beginning" wars (plural)? killing innocent civilians (especially children) in the wake of killing "suspects" because these civilians were harbouring one or more terrorists? gimme a break and consult your children instead of ridiculing yourself. anybody who condones or tries to excuse the arbitrary killing of human beings is as guilty as those who give the actual orders! Not back tracking, comprehension deficit, never was such a statement made, only your misunderstanding of what was posted.. Afghanistan and Iraq maybe? Call me guilty then I gladly except the guilt I'd even pull the trigger if I had the privilege.. I'd sleep very well that night as well knowing I'm contributing to the security of my children's future. BTW I did consult them just now and I'll reserve their opinion of you as it's not appropriate for them to be using that sort of language towards intellectually challenged human beings.. Edited November 24, 2011 by WarpSpeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) No use Naam They are like rabid dogs,,,, For the record warped I am not leftist & ask UG who voted for Obama Sure was not me Lastly when I was speaking of no attacks after.... I was speaking to UG's claim about terrorist in regards to 9-11-2001 Last terrorist attack was 9-11 as far as America is concerned. That attacks occur in foreign lands we invade does not surprise. Anyway have at it but try to put your thoughts claims in less than 10 posts. Your like a spammer gone mad. Goodnight...Late here in America Edited November 24, 2011 by flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 hmmm... you are contributing to the security of your children by mentioning in a discussion forum with the topic "...suspects killed in U.S. drone strike in Pakistan" remind me again who began these wars exactly? and when your attention is drawn to the fact that Pakistanis in Pakistan were killed (a country allied with the U.S. and to the best of my knowledge never declared war on the U.S.) you mention something about intellectually challenged human beings? i fully agree with you! question: does it hurt a lot when shooting ones foot not only once but several times? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 And with this last series of posts, this topic WILL settle down. It's getting far too personal and far too centered on the posters rather than the topic. We get it. Some of you really, really don't support drone strikes and some of you really, really do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) hmmm... you are contributing to the security of your children by mentioning in a discussion forum with the topic "...suspects killed in U.S. drone strike in Pakistan" remind me again who began these wars exactly? and when your attention is drawn to the fact that Pakistanis in Pakistan were killed (a country allied with the U.S. and to the best of my knowledge never declared war on the U.S.) you mention something about intellectually challenged human beings? i fully agree with you! question: does it hurt a lot when shooting ones foot not only once but several times? So you didn't mix up the wars I was referring to then? Allies?? As long as we keep financially supporting them and they can keep taking the money without actually having to take a real stand and do anything, you mean that kind of allies? That kind we don't need.. Like a "friend" who's never there when you need them but is always there when they need something from you...Like a loan, never to be paid back . Edited November 24, 2011 by WarpSpeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Absolutely a massive difference. A suicide bomber's goal is a kin to criminals such as gangsters and mafioso with even lower morality and ethics who's goal it is to intimidate and instill fear into the population and targets random innocents, while this is not the purpose of a drone.. What is the purpose of a drone then? Slaughtering innocent wedding parties. No moral difference at all. Many drone strikes have targeted innocent people. Of course they have brown skin so thats alright then. The glaring, elephant-in-the-room difference is INTENT. The suicide bombers intend to kill innocent people, the drone pilots don't. But you and everyone here already knew that. the elephant-in-the-room is "terror suspects killed". similar to "friend/foe identification" drones which are used for killing suspicious terroristic elements are equipped with a "suspect / non-suspect identification" system which works with an accuracy of 50%. "suspect" is the media's word for it. I'm confident that we aren't sending expensive drones with expensive weaponry to off someone unless there is enough proof the guy is a baddie. I do feel sorry for any true innocents killed in the general area. Probably more sorry than the average radical Pakistani insurgent-supporter felt about the people jumping out of the WTC to avoid being cooked alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 I'm confident that we aren't sending expensive drones with expensive weaponry to off someone unless there is enough proof the guy is a baddie. Well I hate to shake your confidence but this is just the latest of many They at times cannot even discern baddies from goodies & if it were not for this time being soldiers killed it would not be reported at all. Yes this was copters this time but it has happened before with Reuters cameramen being killed. So expensive equipment does not require proof nor guarantee it obviously http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-11-26/pakistan-nato/51408074/1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now